Penn State Berks Faculty Senate Council
Friday, February 24, 2006, 1:00-2:30 pm
Minutes
Attendees: S. Snyder, L. Grobman, R. Zambanini (Officers); A. Romberger (Parliamentarian &
Univ. Senator); B. Bowers, M. Dunbar, P. Esqueda, K. Fifer, H. Gourama, J. Hillman,
D. Litvin, D. Morganti, H. Patterson, M. Ramsey, V. Rowe (Senate Council); C. Lovitt,
S. Speece (Administration); M. Aynardi, N. Dewald, P. Frye, M. Mart, M. Moyer,
T. Mysliwiec, R. Newnham, S. Samson, I. Shibley, A. Slonaker (Faculty); L. Shibley,
(Staff); B. Parker (Student)
1.
Call to Order
2.
Approval of Past Minutes – The minutes of the Penn State Berks Faculty Senate Council for
January 27, 2006 meeting were approved unanimously.
3.
Reports of Officers – Chair (Steve Snyder)



4.
A brief report on the proposed changes to today’s agenda and rationale for the changes were
explained. In the past few weeks, a number of items came to the Senate Executive Committee.
While an agenda had been planned and duly submitted in accordance with the Constitution, the
Executive Committee was obliged by priority to change our agenda considerably within fortyeight hours of today’s meeting. In order to be consistent with the Constitution, Council was
asked to approve this change. The Committee is bound by the Constitution and charges by the
University Faculty Senate to review and legislate on curricular matters. A mandate that requires
all first-year Seminar sections incorporates a common reading is clearly curricular. The second
addition to the agenda deals with a resolution brought to Council by an official convened body.
As stated in the Constitution such resolutions require immediate consideration. In spite of the
fact that the notification time as specified by the Constitution has been exceeded, the Chair
asked that Council to approve this addition.
The Chair called for a vote on approval of the newly advised agenda. The vote was counted:
four votes for approval, five votes opposed. The request to approve the revised agenda was
defeated.
The meeting then proceeded with the original agenda.
Unfinished Business


Extension of the Current Constitution
 The members of the Executive Committee and the Ad-Hoc Committee on the Constitution
asked Council to approve maintaining the current Constitution until the end of May 2006.
Plans are being made for a faculty assembly to ratify the Constitution. There are some
major revisions, including restructuring Council to be a General Assembly, a “committee of
the whole.”
 A vote was called on approval. The motion was approved.
Constitutional Ratification Dinner
 The dinner will take place May 2, 2006 in the Multi-Purpose Room. More information will
be sent out after Spring Break.
 It is essential that faculty attend this event. In order to ratify the Constitution, fifty-one
percent of the faculty must be in attendance.
5.
New Legislative Business


6.
Comments by Administrators – Dr. Carl Lovitt (Associate Dean for Academic Affairs)
 Dr. Lovitt, who is leaving to become Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at
Central Connecticut State University at the end of May 2006, expressed gratitude to

7.
Council and to the College community for making his six years at Berks meaningful.
The College is moving in the right direction with the Strategic Plan.
Reports of University Senators – Appendix C



8.
Motion on Revision to Promotion and Tenure Policy, Penn State Berks, section titled
“Criteria for Tenure and Promotion – Appendix A2 (original motion included as
Appendix A1)
 The Faculty Affairs Committee made a motion regarding a paragraph in the Criteria for
Promotion and Tenure Policy. Appendix A-1 is the way the motion currently reads.
Appendix A-2 is the revision, done with the approval of Dr. Lovitt and the unanimous vote
of the FAC. Paragraph number 3 in Appendix A-1 is not a useful paragraph for the Berks
faculty. Rather than delete it, a continued elaboration of the criteria was needed. This
elaboration is addressed in Appendix A2.
 A vote on the motion was called. The motion was approved.
Recommended Motion on Multi-Year Faculty to Senior Lecturer – Appendix B
 This issue was brought to the FAC by faculty and division heads were expressed concern
about the current policy. The question is are we seeking to promote every or almost every
fixed-term lecturer to senior lecturer because of length of time they have been teaching or
are promotions to be made for truly outstanding efforts. The Committee was in favor of the
later.
 A friendly amendment was agreed upon, adding “significant evidence of teaching
effectiveness and commitment to student learning” be added to the criteria for promotion.
 A vote on the amended motion was taken. The motion was approved.
Mohamad Ansari
Andy Romberger – additional agenda items for University Senate
 A new committee will be established on Educational Equity and Campus Environment
 There will be a revision of Academic Rank upcoming, which will primarily affect the
Librarians.
 Faculty Benefits will report on faculty salaries.
Bob Zambanini
 Passed course proposal can be accessed through the library.
 Still checking into the issue of ownership of campus programs
Reports of Committees



Academic Affairs Committee Meeting Notes of February 10, 2006 – Appendix D
Academic Affairs Committee Meeting Notes of February 17, 2006 – Appendix E
Academic Affairs Committee Report on the Proposal to Require the Common Reading in
All First Year Seminars – Appendix F
 There was a motion embedded in the committee report directly from Academic Affairs
Committee, submitted as part of the original meeting agenda. The report, as well as a
recommendation and motion, warrants immediate consideration by Council.
 The Chair submitted his opinion on local legislative authority. The University Senate,
which has been granted sole legislative authority over curricular affairs, confers legislative
authority over local matters to local Senates. The Berks Faculty Senate Council, have been
given the authority (confirmed by the current Chair of the University Curricular Affairs
Committee, Laurie Breakey) to consider a mandate which requires a common reading in all
First-Year Seminars. The disposition of the common reading program itself, however,
remains a gray area. Because its curricular status has not been defined, it may remain the



privilege of the Associate Dean to continue to offer this program. The Academic Affairs
Committee was charged, by the Senate Chair, to review the recommendation to dissolve the
program and it is an item for discussion. Although until the program status has been
confirmed, we may not be able to act with legislative authority. The Committee provided
this body with as complete a report as possible in the time permitted. Their
recommendation reflects careful consideration and deliberation and genuine concern for
their colleagues and for this College.
The Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, Michele Ramsey, provided clarification and
explanation of the document & motion explained in Appendix F in the meeting packet. The
Committee respectfully submits to the Senate the opinion that we should stop the program
for now and do additional research on this question.
Discussion followed between Senate member, faculty and others present. Opinions both
for and against the motion were expressed. After a lengthy discussion, the Chair indicated
that, due to the lateness of the hour, a few more comments would be taken and then the
vote would be called.
A vote on the motion was called by secret ballot. Six votes were cast for the motion to
require the common reading in the First Year Seminar; six votes were cast against
requirement. The Chair was called upon to cast the tie-breaking vote. The Chair cast his
vote to require the common reading. The motion was defeated by a vote of seven to six.
While the vote was being counted, the Chair entertained comments and discussion.
 A Council member expressed serious concerns regarding the slight majority of members
voting not to accept the recommendation of the Executive Committee to reorder the agenda
to deal with two important issues brought to the Committee by faculty. By not accepting
the changes, the proposal on the common reading in first year seminars and the resolution
by the Faculty Assembly regarding the validity of the AD-14 process could not be
discussed and addressed. The issue will not go away and will need to be discussed at some
point.
 The Chair addressed a question raised about the faculty assembly, being solely for
discussion of the resolution and not about the AD-14 process itself. The assembly did have
a discussion about the AD-14 and then the issue of the resolution was brought up. Any
faculty member has the right to bring any issue before the assembly for discussion.
 Another member also expresses concern that by not accepting the reordered agenda the
process of discussion of the items listed was subverted.
 The Associate Dean of Academics asked for a chance to comment on the issue. It was felt
that the resolution was ill-advised and will not achieve anything except to make the College
look bad. It could serve to cloud the question of whatever happens. This process has been
used before and was used last year at the Abington Campus.
 At this time the Chair recognized the student in attendance for remarks.
 A motion was made and seconded and the meeting was adjourned.





Academic Affairs Committee Discourse Analysis of Faculty Comments – Appendix G
Faculty Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2006 – Appendix H
Faculty Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes, February 14, 2006 – Appendix I
Strategic Planning and Budget Committee Meeting Minutes, February 14, 2006 – Appendix J
Penn State Berks College Grants Office Document – Appendix K
9.
Forensic Business – Strategy to Respond to the African-American Focus Group Report –
Appendix L – to be addressed at a later meeting due to lack of time for discussion
10.
Announcements
11.
Adjournment